The source demonstrates the need to create a broader definition of national interest in order to
induce a greater unity in the pursuit of a nation’s common goals and values. The author of the source
expresses his idea that a broader definition of national is needed to unite nations and nation states alike, in
order to overcome challenges and their interests together. Toussaint L’Ouverture would greatly agree with
this source because he himself had to bring his nation together in order to overcome adversity and to
prosper as a nation. He would agree with broadening the definition of national interest because he was
born an educated Haitian, compared to the majority of Haitians being born into slavery. By broadening
the definition it would be much easier to describe all of Toussaint’s efforts as an action of national
Interest. General Kabuga greatly oppose this source, as he preferred to take genocidal actions against the
Tutsi people, instead of taking a step back and realizing he could possibly achieve the Hutu people’s
national interest of achieving financial independence and security from the Tutsi people using democracy
and convincing the Tutsi that it would benefit them all. I agree with this source to the greatest extent
because when a nation comes together to create a greater unity between the people when talking about
overcoming adversity and achieving a nation’s common goal, it will not only be easier for the nation to
prosper, but will also offer greater security and peace between the citizens of the nations. National interest
is one of the most important things a nation can have, however I believe that the current definition of
national interest is too restricting to be used to its fullest extent, that is why this paper will give three
reasons as to why the definition of national interest should be broadened for the future.
In the past it has been shown that a restrictive definition of national interest has gone to work
against the very nation whose national interest and goals were at stake due to the definition not being
broadened enough to the point where every participating party has an equal say and vote in a nation's
decision. During the 1995 Quebec separation votes, had the Quebecois been able to implement a more
inclusive broader definition of national interest, Quebec could have possibly been able to become its own
country as the Parti de Quebecois originally wanted. The primary evidence to support this claim is the
recent example of western alienation and separatism, specifically Alberta. Alberta has long not been
happy with the fossil fuel and carbon restrictions formed in recent years that directly impacts the
province’s economy in a negative manner, as well as the taxes placed on their primary industry. The
Albertan government could’ve possibly supported Quebec’s separatism vote in order to reduce the
amount of money coming out of the province in the form of federal taxes, in an effort to lessen the
financial metaphorical blows happening with Canada’s current federal government party. A second
example as to how a better broadened definition of national interest would benefit Quebec’s 1995
separatism vote would yet again be Alberta. Alberta in the 1970’s had started originating it’s first
separatist thoughts, as they were greatly unhappy with Pierre Trudeau newly announced National Energy
Program, that they felt the rest of Canada would just leech energy from the hard working Albertans. Had
all the provincial leaders been able to vote on Quebec’s separation vote at the time, Alberta would have
most definitely voted yes, as they would not only sympathize with the Quebecois’ feelings of alienation,
but they would also seek benefit in one of Canada’s largest provinces leaving the country, effectively
removing it from the National Energy Program introduced just 20 years prior. This is how a broadened
definition of national interest would come to benefit not just those in the target nation, but those all
around it as well.
In recent times members of supranationalist entities have put their own national interests aside in
an effort to pursue a greater national interest that involves neighboring nations as well, leading to a
greater benefit from all nations involved and would reward every participating nations with greater
benefits than if they each pursued their own interests. Which is why the new definition of national interest
should not include restrictions like national borders. The European Union has created a single currency
for all accepting member nations of the EU to use, that being the euro. Before the euro most nations
would have their own currency, which were largely only accepted in their own countries. Smaller
countries in Europe would likely have a largely unstable currency, with a single catastrophe or loan being
enough to greatly change the value of the national currency because of how little people were actually
using it on a day to day basis. Thus making it very simple for smaller countries to take great hits on their
GDP and economy in the matter of weeks. With the euro being introduced from the EU, it helped bring
great economic stability to all nations using the currency, as instead of relying on a single small nation to
uphold its value, the value of the euro depended on all of the participating countries. The euro also opened
the gates for international trade all throughout Europe and the world for smaller countries that didn’t have
access to it before. Having a strong currency to represent your economy led to greater economic trust
between small European countries and countries around the world, as well as making trade a lot easier for
foreign nations as the euro had turned into a worldwide known and reputable currency. The secondary
example ro reinforce this statement is the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization
greatly helps developing countries by promoting and preparing them for international trade in order to
create a healthier and stronger economy, both for the country they are assisting, as well as the rest of the
world. With the help of the World Trade Organization, the developing nation profits from the increased
trade economically, which can be harnessed to achieve a higher quality of life in the nation. Other
countries benefit from having newfound trade partners and economic allies. The World Trade
Organization would not be able to do such things if all countries looked at their national interests in a
nationalistic perspective, showing why a broadened definition of national interest would be much better
and inclusive than the former.
A country that went on an isolationist route because of their national interests will often reap
more rewards from an internationalistic approach to world issues than if they were to continue on their
path of isolationism. Between the years of World War 1 and World War 2, the United States of America
turned to isolationism under their presidential policy to not become involved in foreign wars. While
America was an isolationist state, they focused on recovering from the great depression and the losses of
World War 1, and they were making progress, albeit at a slow rate. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbour in
1941, America decided to end their policy of Isolationism and help the Allies in the war. With the power
of America’s strong economy and mass of troops, the Allies won the war in the end. Without America
deciding it would be better for them to take part in the second World War, the world could have been very
different as to how we see it today. America did not only give to the Allies during the World War
however, as they came to realize they had built the strongest of alliances with the Allied countries,
leading to trade alliances that would last to this day, as well as being able to salvage Nazi techonology to
further launch their technological advances. America straying away from isolationism after the war led to
being seen as a massive world power, as well as greatly increasing their international trade toi skyrocket
their economy growth even more, leaving it where it is today as one of the richest countries in the world.
The alliances made in World War 2 helped America to create the UN in conjunction with other nations
and global superpowers, leading to the world wide non-government organization that has become
synonymous with peace and humanitarian help all around the world. Had the United States decided to not
part ways with their isolationist ideals and help in the second world war, none of these alliances would
have been made to the level of respect they are now, and the whole world could look very different from
what it does now.
A country with big national interests should not mean it has to take a nationalistic approach to all
their issues, rather it should look to take a step back and look towards taking an internationalistic
approach to their issues, as time has shown that making allies and helping other countries whale solving
your own issues is the best way to go. Which is why national interest is one of the most important things a
nation can have, however the current definition of national interest is too restricting to be used to its
fullest extent, which is why I agree with this source to the fullest extent. Nations would greatly benefit
from a less restrictive definition of national interest, putting their nationalistic perspective on national
interest away in order to take an internationalist stance in order to achieve more by doing less, and lastly
how a country with an internationalist approach to world issues will find itself benefiting more than a
country that decided to follow nationalism to its core. This is why national interest needs a better
internationalistic definition.